Kerry now has over 59 million votes

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

More votes keep turning up. Check back in a few weeks, and see if it's still
Bush 62,040,237
Kerry 59,027,612

Just a day or two ago, it was Bush a bit over 62 million, Kerry a bit under 59 million.

[Cashcow]

HE'S GOING TO WIN@#!(*!1LOL

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

HE'S GOING TO WIN@#!(*!1LOL

No, but he's only down 2.46% in the popular vote, instead of the 3% election night. Kerry seems to do better with non-Diebold votes.

[opebo]

HE'S GOING TO WIN@#!(*!1LOL

No, but he's only down 2.46% in the popular vote, instead of the 3% election night. Kerry seems to do better with non-Diebold votes.

Hah, yes, real ones!

[Shira]

More votes keep turning up. Check back in a few weeks, and see if it's still
Bush 62,040,237
Kerry 59,027,612

Just a day or two ago, it was Bush a bit over 62 million, Kerry a bit under 59 million.

This won't help now. We have to find a way to somehow live with this president and his crafty VP.

[Gabu]

HE'S GOING TO WIN@#!(*!1LOL

[King]

Oh no!! Has Ohio flipped yet?

[minionofmidas]

Oh no!! Has Ohio flipped yet?

Yes, and so have Florida and Idaho.

[minionofmidas]

Seriously though, if votes would keep on coming in at this rate (Hahaha), Kerry'd overtake Bush sometime in september.

[King]

Just a day or two ago, it was Bush a bit over 62 million, Kerry a bit under 59 million.

So you are saying Bush should be at 63 million now that Kerry has 59 million? That would mean for every Kerry vote, Bush would have to get 13.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just a day or two ago, it was Bush a bit over 62 million, Kerry a bit under 59 million.

So you are saying Bush should be at 63 million now that Kerry has 59 million? That would mean for every Kerry vote, Bush would have to get 13.

Huh?

[MODU]

HE'S GOING TO WIN@#!(*!1LOL

No, but he's only down 2.46% in the popular vote, instead of the 3% election night. Kerry seems to do better with non-Diebold votes.

Are you guys still cowing over this percentage thing?  Geez, it's been weeks since I've stated this, but I guess I'll have to say it again:

A 3 million lead (15%) out of 20 million votes is the same as a 3 million lead (3%) out of 100 million votes.  If there was 1 billion votes, 3 million represents 0.3%.  The spread itself hasn't changed.  The same holds true with the ever increasing number of votes being counted following Nov 2nd.  Seems that for every Kerry vote added to the initial total, a Bush vote is being added as well.  The spread hasn't changed, and no states have changed.  Trying to point at a shrinking percentage is merely a sign of desperation, and it is rather pathetic (to be blunt).  I would have thought that you (and I mean you on both sides of the aisle) would have grown up a little over the past 8 weeks since election day.  Bush won more electoral votes, more states, and more popular votes compared to 2000, and in addition, there isn't a question over whom actually "won" as in 2000.  Just . . . just get over it already.

[minionofmidas]

HE'S GOING TO WIN@#!(*!1LOL

No, but he's only down 2.46% in the popular vote, instead of the 3% election night. Kerry seems to do better with non-Diebold votes.

Are you guys still cowing over this percentage thing?  Geez, it's been weeks since I've stated this, but I guess I'll have to say it again:

A 3 million lead (15%) out of 20 million votes is the same as a 3 million lead (3%) out of 100 million votes.  If there was 1 billion votes, 3 million represents 0.3%.

Depends in what sense. An Atlas Fantasy President elected by a margin of 20 votes has a very broad mandate indeed...now imagine a US president elected by 20 votes. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that is the sense in which your original statement holds true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We know that. Nor do we expect any to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for everybody, but I fully realize that and still find some scant solace in the fact that the country, on aggregate, swung by "only" 3 percentage points rather than 3.5 points. No contradiction there. Obviously, there were so many new voters that it's hard to speak of an actual swing...in theory, no 2000 voters whatsoever might have changed their minds.

[agcatter]

And that "proof" would be what, exactly?

[opebo]

And that "proof" would be what, exactly?

Because the dishonest candidate won?

Just kidding - the more dishonest candidate.

But seriously, there is no definite proof that it was stolen as such.  More likely 'fixed' beforehand.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

59 million noses to rub in the dirt!



---

Strum along to the tune of 59 million whiners!

[opebo]

59 million noses to rub in the dirt!

You underestimate the achievement - in fact he will be rubbing the noses of the entire bottom 98% of the population in the dirt.  But they're used to it.

[opebo]

Strum along to the tune of 59 million whiners!

'Bush fiddles while soldiers die.'

I'm enjoying this alternative captioning.. got anymore cartoons jmfcst?

[KEmperor]

More proof that this election was stolen.

Yes, the election was stolen because more votes have been tabulated......